Letters to the Editor
-
What's the point?
If her positions were revolutionary, wise, and strategic, I'd consider voting for her, regardless of what the Right wingers think. But she is already such a compromiser, and how shown so little leadership in the Senate - what possible motive would the liberal or Democratic base have for supporting her, other than name recognition? She would galvanize the Republican base while leaving the Democratic base, as TT says, profoundly ambivalent. Obama, meanwhile, wants to get along with everyone. An admirable goal, usually, but when we've been living with quislings as our Democratic representatives for years, I'd rather have someone prepared to take the gloves off as soon as he's sworn in. My dream is that, when the new Democratic President is sworn in, as soon as he takes the oath, he will turn to the Secret Service, point to Bush and Cheney, and say "Arrest those men." But I dream. Hillary wouldn't do it, and Obama may just give them a big hug and invite them to dinner.
-
Shaggylocks
Did I say the discussion should stop? I went back and read my post but I couldn't find those words. Nor was I aware that making a mere observation about the way a political candidate is treated by the public and the media was considered an attempt to shut down a discussion. TT was making one about her, so I just decided to add my own. And for this I'm called intellectually dishonest?
-
Right on!
Surely we've had enough of family dynasties by now?
-
Tom Tommorrow jumps on the Hillary-bashing train
I remember Al Gore getting this same treatment from the left-wing and main-stream media in 2000.
A vote for Gore is the same as Bush! So vote Nadar!
Now we're eating crow with how we treated Gore...how we ASSumed we knew so much about him and his character.
This cartoon is a perfect summary of where lefties sit right now. They have joined the hype and because it suits their misperceptions about her, and they will happily pile on.
It doesn't help that many in the press corps seem to go out of their way to mislead news consumers about Clinton's vote and what she's been saying about it.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703050007
Meanwhile, she co-sponsors legislation with Jim Webb that states, that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization.
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284618
And still Obama gets a pass on saber-rattling and hypocrisy when he himself co-sponsored the following bill in April, 2007: The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,"
It states that:
"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."
How is this different than the Kyl-Leiberman resolution that Obama didn't show up to vote for?
Let's be consistent here, Tom. And please don't perpetuate willful ignorance on issues.
-
Tom Tommorrow jumps on the Hillary-bashing train
I remember Al Gore getting this same treatment from the left-wing and main-stream media in 2000.
A vote for Gore is the same as Bush! So vote Nadar!
Now we're eating crow with how we treated Gore...how we ASSumed we knew so much about him and his character.
This cartoon is a perfect summary of where lefties sit right now. They have joined the hype and because it suits their misperceptions about her, and they will happily pile on.
It doesn't help that many in the press corps seem to go out of their way to mislead news consumers about Clinton's vote and what she's been saying about it.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703050007
Meanwhile, she co-sponsors legislation with Jim Webb that states, that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization.
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284618
And still Obama gets a pass on saber-rattling and hypocrisy when he himself co-sponsored the following bill in April, 2007: The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,"
It states that:
"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."
How is this different than the Kyl-Leiberman resolution that Obama didn't show up to vote for?
Let's be consistent here, Tom. And please don't perpetuate willful ignorance on issues.
-
Tom Tommorrow jumps on the Hillary-bashing train
I remember Al Gore getting this same treatment from the left-wing and main-stream media in 2000.
A vote for Gore is the same as Bush! So vote Nadar!
Now we're eating crow with how we treated Gore...how we ASSumed we knew so much about him and his character.
This cartoon is a perfect summary of where lefties sit right now. They have joined the hype and because it suits their misperceptions about her, and they will happily pile on.
It doesn't help that many in the press corps seem to go out of their way to mislead news consumers about Clinton's vote and what she's been saying about it.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703050007
Meanwhile, she co-sponsors legislation with Jim Webb that states, that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization.
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284618
And still Obama gets a pass on saber-rattling and hypocrisy when he himself co-sponsored the following bill in April, 2007: The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,"
It states that:
"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."
How is this different than the Kyl-Leiberman resolution that Obama didn't show up to vote for?
Let's be consistent here, Tom. And please don't perpetuate willful ignorance on issues.